Ok but riddle me this,7thguest, doesn't it seem a little fishy to you that the apocrypha were (was?) removed when the catholic church no longer had a monopoly on the Bible? As soon as the reformation began, and the common people could read the Bible, they removed the apocrypha.

I personally think that the catholic church stuck those things supporting purgatory and such, in the Bible to support the sale of indulgences. They would have seen a serious decrease in revenue and influence if they had said 'Wait common people, giving us all your money so that the saints can interject on your dead loved ones behalf is actually a stupid idea and doesn't work.'

If anything I completely agree with you. As I'm sure Luther and Wycliffe did.

I recently had this same discussion with one of my friends, our conclusion is this, why not write a modern bible? Accounts and testimony from people now, instead of reading what happened 2000 years ago?

Sorry, Wycliffe and Luther are probably the most widely known for translating the bible (originally) which is why I stated that I'm sure they agree with you. I'm sure they translated it because they did not agree with a lot of things going on at that time?

After much deduction, asking if God exists or not, it's only viable to say that faith is worth more than the truth. Faith gives hope, faith gives joy, faith gives love. Maybe that's the problem with the society in England... And most other parts of the world... Lack of faith?

The7thGuest wrote:Sorry, Wycliffe and Luther are probably the most widely known for translating the bible (originally) which is why I stated that I'm sure they agree with you. I'm sure they translated it because they did not agree with a lot of things going on at that time?

That's true. But what is the Old Testament other than history? There doesn't seem to be a point to rewriting that, and what is the New Testament other than doctrine, the life of Jesus, and some prophecy. You can't rewrite doctrine without becoming something other than Christian, there is no modern messiah to follow around and chronicle, and what's the point of trying to rewrite prophecy?

code2004 wrote:After much deduction, asking if God exists or not, it's only viable to say that faith is worth more than the truth. Faith gives hope, faith gives joy, faith gives love. Maybe that's the problem with the society in England... And most other parts of the world... Lack of faith?

Faith is very important to have, but equally hard to get. But then again, too much of a good thing, is always a bad thing.

The7thGuest wrote:Sorry, Wycliffe and Luther are probably the most widely known for translating the bible (originally) which is why I stated that I'm sure they agree with you. I'm sure they translated it because they did not agree with a lot of things going on at that time?

That's true. But what is the Old Testament other than history? There doesn't seem to be a point to rewriting that, and what is the New Testament other than doctrine, the life of Jesus, and some prophecy. You can't rewrite doctrine without becoming something other than Christian, there is no modern messiah to follow around and chronicle, and what's the point of trying to rewrite prophecy?[quote]

You have to remember that the history and doctrine you were talking about were originally in different languages, they only translated it into english so everyone could read it!

Hi, I know I'm a noob to this forum so I hope people don't mind me jumping in.

I had a lot of these similar kind of thoughts before, but I'll never forgot the time I was arguing with a christain friend ( ha I won't even bother to call it discussing; you know how it is with religion!) and he asked me, "yeah, but what did Jesus actually tell people to do, in whatever book it was recorded in, and what's so bad about what he taught?" He challenged me to just read the words of Jesus himself (as they were recorded, I corrected him, or course!) and to make a list of issues where I felt Jesus had actually done something wrong.

I never really thought about it that way, but it did cause me to go back and read a few chapters out of the Bible. I did have some objections to the way Jesus seemed to think everyone else was wrong but at the same time, I did find it kind of hard to exactly point out where I thought he was so bad.

Generally speaking I don't like people who think they are perfect, but at the same time I find it kind of difficult to find fault with people who heal the sick and feed the hungry. Whether or not Jesus ever really did exist, that is what is RECORDED about his life and I find it difficult to be upset with such a person, whether real or not. (for fucks sakes I work in a hospital; how can you be upset with someone who heals the sick! Try working with someone who's entire organ of body skin is falling off in pieces, and wish that someone would not come along and magically heal that person.) But I digress....